Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,525 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,468,934
Pageviews Today: 1,965,844Threads Today: 434Posts Today: 7,603
02:12 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Examples of the study of philosophy.

 
0verlord
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 18221258
Australia
05/27/2013 05:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Examples of the study of philosophy.
For those of you who are not familiar with the study and understanding of philosophy,
here are some explanations which will fuel your mind.
The basics of philosophy explained in detail from a human perspective.
The undeniable, ever-constant evidence which will leave you wondering.

Here is an example.
In daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on a closer
scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only
a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really
may believe. In the search for certainty, it is natural to begin with
our present experiences, and in some sense, no doubt, knowledge is to
be derived from them. But any statement as to what it is that our
immediate experiences make us know is very likely to be wrong. It
seems to me that I am now sitting in a chair, at a table of a certain
shape, on which I see sheets of paper with writing or print. By
turning my head I see out of the window buildings and clouds and the sun.

I believe that the sun is about ninety-three million miles from
the earth; that it is a hot globe many times bigger than the earth;
that, owing to the earth's rotation, it rises every morning, and will
continue to do so for an indefinite time in the future. I believe
that, if any other normal person comes into my room, he will see the
same chairs and tables and books and papers as I see, and that the
table which I see is the same as the table which I feel pressing
against my arm. All this seems to be so evident as to be hardly worth
stating, except in answer to a man who doubts whether I know anything.
Yet all this may be reasonably doubted, and all of it requires much
careful discussion before we can be sure that we have stated it in a
form that is wholly true.

To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the
table. To the eye it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is
smooth and cool and hard; when I tap it, it gives out a wooden sound.
Any one else who sees and feels and hears the table will agree with
this description, so that it might seem as if no difficulty would
arise; but as soon as we try to be more precise our troubles begin.
Although I believe that the table is 'really' of the same colour all
over, the parts that reflect the light look much brighter than the
other parts, and some parts look white because of reflected light. I
know that, if I move, the parts that reflect the light will be
different, so that the apparent distribution of colours on the table will change.

It follows that if several people are looking at the
table at the same moment, no two of them will see exactly the same
distribution of colours, because no two can see it from exactly the
same point of view, and any change in the point of view makes some
change in the way the light is reflected.
For most practical purposes these differences are unimportant, but to
the painter they are all-important: the painter has to unlearn the
habit of thinking that things seem to have the colour which common
sense says they 'really' have, and to learn the habit of seeing things
as they appear. Here we have already the beginning of one of the
distinctions that cause most trouble in philosophy, the distinction
between 'appearance' and 'reality', between what things seem to be and
what they are. The painter wants to know what things seem to be, the
practical man and the philosopher want to know what they are; but the
philosopher's wish to know this is stronger than the practical man's,
and is more troubled by knowledge as to the difficulties of answering
the question.
To return to the table. It is evident from what we have found, that
there is no colour which pre-eminently appears to be the colour of
the table, or even of any one particular part of the table , it appears
to be of different colours from different points of view, and there is
no reason for regarding some of these as more really its colour than others.

We know that even from a given point of view the colour
will seem different by artificial light, or to a colour-blind man, or
to a man wearing blue spectacles, while in the dark there will be no
colour at all, though to touch and hearing the table will be
unchanged. This colour is not something which is inherent in the
table, but something depending upon the table and the spectator and
the way the light falls on the table. When, in ordinary life, we
speak of the colour of the table, we only mean the sort of colour
which it will seem to have to a normal spectator from an ordinary
point of view under usual conditions of light. But the other colours
which appear under other conditions have just as good a right to be
considered real; and therefore, to avoid favouritism, we are compelled
to deny that, in itself, the table has any one particular colour.
The same thing applies to the texture. With the naked eye one can see
the grain, but otherwise the table looks smooth and even. If we
looked at it through a microscope, we should see roughnesses and hills
and valleys, and all sorts of differences that are imperceptible to
the naked eye. Which of these is the 'real' table? We are naturally
tempted to say that what we see through the microscope is more real,
but that in turn would be changed by a still more powerful microscope.
If, then, we cannot trust what we see with the naked eye, why should
we trust what we see through a microscope?
Thus, again, the
confidence in our senses with which we began deserts us.

The shape of the table is no better.
We are all in the habit of
judging as to the 'real' shapes of things, and we do this so
unreflectingly that we come to think we actually see the real shapes.
But, in fact, as we all have to learn if we try to draw, a given thing
looks different in shape from every different point of view. If our
table is 'really' rectangular, it will look, from almost all points of
view, as if it had two acute angles and two obtuse angles. If
opposite sides are parallel, they will look as if they converged to a
point away from the spectator; if they are of equal length, they will
look as if the nearer side were longer. All these things are not
commonly noticed in looking at a table, because experience has taught
us to construct the 'real' shape from the apparent shape, and the
'real' shape is what interests us as practical men. But the 'real'
shape is not what we see; it is something inferred from what we see.
And what we see is constantly changing in shape as we move about the
room; so that here again the senses seem not to give us the truth
about the table itself, but only about the appearance of the table.
Similar difficulties arise when we consider the sense of touch. It is
true that the table always gives us a sensation of hardness, and we
feel that it resists pressure. But the sensation we obtain depends
upon how hard we press the table and also upon what part of the body
we press with;
thus the various sensations due to various pressures
or various parts of the body cannot be supposed to reveal directly any
definite property of the table, but at most to be signs of some
property which perhaps causes all the sensations, but is not
actually apparent in any of them. And the same applies still more
obviously to the sounds which can be elicited by rapping the table.
Thus it becomes evident that the real table, if there is one, is not
the same as what we immediately experience by sight or touch or
hearing. The real table, if there is one, is not immediately known
to us at all, but must be an inference from what is immediately known.
Hence, two very difficult questions at once arise; namely, (1) Is
there a real table at all? (2) If so, what sort of object can it be?
It will help us in considering these questions to have a few simple
terms of which the meaning is definite and clear. Let us give the
name of 'sense-data' to the things that are immediately known in
sensation: such things as colours, sounds, smells, hardnesses,
roughnesses, and so on. We shall give the name 'sensation' to the
experience of being immediately aware of these things. Thus, whenever
we see a colour, we have a sensation of the colour, but the colour
itself is a sense-datum, not a sensation. The colour is that of
which we are immediately aware, and the awareness itself is the
sensation.
It is plain that if we are to know anything about the
table, it must be by means of the sense-data , brown colour, oblong shape,
smoothness, etc. , which we associate with the table; but, for
the reasons which have been given, we cannot say that the table is the
sense-data, or even that the sense-data are directly properties of the
table. Thus a problem arises as to the relation of the sense-data to
the real table, supposing there is such a thing.
The real table, if it exists, we will call a 'physical object'. Thus
we have to consider the relation of sense-data to physical objects.
The collection of all physical objects is called 'matter'. Thus our
two questions may be re-stated as follows: (1) Is there any such thing
as matter? (2) If so, what is its nature?
What do you presume? Isn't it self-evident?

Last Edited by 0verlord on 05/27/2013 06:28 AM
Overlord
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 18221258
Australia
05/27/2013 05:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
Matter, does it really matter? Is there a table which has a certain
intrinsic nature, and continues to exist when I am not looking, or is
the table merely a product of my imagination, a dream-table in a very
prolonged dream? This question is of the greatest importance. For if
we cannot be sure of the independent existence of objects, we cannot
be sure of the independent existence of other people's bodies, and
therefore still less of other people's minds, since we have no grounds
for believing in their minds except such as are derived from observing
their bodies. Thus if we cannot be sure of the independent existence
of objects, we shall be left alone in a desert, it may be that the
whole outer world is nothing but a dream, and that we alone exist.

When I look at my table and see a certain brown colour,
what is quite certain at once is not 'I am seeing a brown colour',
but rather, 'a brown colour is being seen'. This of course involves
something (or somebody) which (or who) sees the brown colour; but it
does not of itself involve that more or less permanent person whom we call 'I'.
So far as immediate certainty goes, it might be that the
something which sees the brown colour is quite momentary, and not the
same as the something which has some different experience the next
moment.
Thus it is our particular thoughts and feelings that have primitive
certainty. And this applies to dreams and hallucinations as well as
to normal perceptions: when we dream or see a ghost, we certainly do
have the sensations we think we have, but for various reasons it is
held that no physical object corresponds to these sensations. Thus
the certainty of our knowledge of our own experiences does not have to
be limited in any way to allow for exceptional cases.
Here, therefore, we have, for what it is worth, a solid basis from which to
begin our pursuit of knowledge.
The problem we have to consider is this: Granted that we are certain
of our own sense-data, have we any reason for regarding them as signs
of the existence of something else, which we can call the physical
object? When we have enumerated all the sense-data which we should
naturally regard as connected with the table, have we said all there
is to say about the table, or is there still something else, something
not a sense-datum, something which persists when we go out of the
room? Common sense unhesitatingly answers that there is. What can be
bought and sold and pushed about and have a cloth laid on it,
and so on, cannot be a mere collection of sense-data.
If the cloth completely hides the table, we shall derive no sense-data from the
table, and therefore, if the table were merely sense-data, it would
have ceased to exist, and the cloth would be suspended in empty air,
resting, by a miracle, in the place where the table formerly was.
Might you assume it is? What do you all assume?
It might be comprehended and viewed as being absurd, but where does absurdity start and end?
Overlord
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 18221258
Australia
05/27/2013 06:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
One great reason why it is felt that we must secure a physical object
in addition to the sense-data, is that we want the same object for
different people. When ten people are sitting round a dinner-table,
it seems preposterous to maintain that they are not seeing the same
tablecloth, the same knives and forks and spoons and glasses. But the
sense-data are private to each separate person; what is immediately
present to the sight of one is not immediately present to the sight of
another: they all see things from slightly different points of view,
and therefore see them slightly differently. Thus, if there are to be
public neutral objects, which can be in some sense known to many
different people, there must be something over and above the private
and particular sense-data which appear to various people. What
reason, then, have we for believing that there are such public neutral
objects?
The first answer that naturally occurs to one is that,
although different people,
may see the table slightly differently, still they
all see more or less similar things when they look at the table, and
the variations in what they see follow the laws of perspective and
reflection of light, so that it is easy to arrive at a permanent
object underlying all the different people's sense-data. I bought my
table from the former occupant of my room; I could not buy his
sense-data, which died when he went away, but I could and did buy the
confident expectation of more or less similar sense-data. Thus it is
the fact that different people have similar sense-data, and that one
person in a given place at different times has similar sense-data,
which makes us suppose that over and above the sense-data there is a
permanent public object which underlies or causes the sense-data of
various people at various times.
Now in so far as the above considerations depend upon supposing that
there are other people besides ourselves, they beg the very question
at issue. Other people are represented to me by certain sense-data,
such as the sight of them or the sound of their voices, and if I had
no reason to believe that there were physical objects independent of
my sense-data, I should have no reason to believe that other people
exist except as part of my dream. Thus, when we are trying to show
that there must be objects independent of our own sense-data, we
cannot appeal to the testimony of other people, since this testimony
itself consists of sense-data, and does not reveal other people's experiences,
unless our own sense-data are signs of things existing
independently of us. We must therefore, if possible, find, in our own
purely private experiences, characteristics which show, or tend to
show, that there are in the world things other than ourselves and our
private experiences.
In one sense it must be admitted that we can never prove the existence
of things other than ourselves and our experiences. No logical
absurdity results from the hypothesis that the world consists of
myself and my thoughts and feelings and sensations, and that
everything else is mere fancy. In dreams a very complicated world may
seem to be present, and yet on waking we find it was a delusion; that
is to say, we find that the sense-data in the dream do not appear to
have corresponded with such physical objects as we should naturally
infer from our sense-data. (It is true that, when the physical world
is assumed, it is possible to find physical causes for the sense-data
in dreams: a door banging, for instance, may cause us to dream of a
naval engagement. But although, in this case, there is a physical
cause for the sense-data, there is not a physical object corresponding
to the sense-data in the way in which an actual naval battle would
correspond.) There is no logical impossibility in the supposition that
the whole of life is a dream, in which we ourselves create all the
objects that come before us. But although this is not logically
impossible, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true;
and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis, viewed as a means of
accounting for the facts of our own life, than the common-sense
hypothesis that there really are objects independent of us, whose
action on us causes our sensations.
Overlord
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 18221258
Australia
05/27/2013 06:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
The way in which simplicity comes in from supposing that there really
are physical objects is easily seen. If the cat appears at one moment
in one part of the room, and at another in another part, it is natural
to suppose that it has moved from the one to the other, passing over a
series of intermediate positions. But if it is merely a set of
sense-data, it cannot have ever been in any place where I did not see
it; thus we shall have to suppose that it did not exist at all while I
was not looking, but suddenly sprang into being in a new place. If
the cat exists whether I see it or not, we can understand from our own
experience how it gets hungry between one meal and the next; but if it
does not exist when I am not seeing it, it seems odd that appetite
should grow during non-existence as fast as during existence. And if
the cat consists only of sense-data, it cannot be hungry, since no
hunger but my own can be a sense-datum to me. Thus the behaviour of
the sense-data which represent the cat to me, though it seems quite
natural when regarded as an expression of hunger, becomes utterly
inexplicable when regarded as mere movements and changes of patches of
colour, which are as incapable of hunger as a triangle is of playing
football. But the difficulty in the case of the cat is nothing compared to the
difficulty in the case of human beings. When human beings speak, that
is, when we hear certain noises which we associate with ideas, and
simultaneously see certain motions of lips and expressions of face, it
is very difficult to suppose that what we hear is not the expression
of a thought, as we know it would be if we emitted the same sounds.
Of course similar things happen in dreams, where we are mistaken as to
the existence of other people. But dreams are more or less suggested
by what we call waking life, and are capable of being more or less
accounted for on scientific principles if we assume that there really
is a physical world. Thus every principle of simplicity urges us to
adopt the natural view, that there really are objects other than
ourselves and our sense-data which have an existence not dependent
upon our perceiving them.
Of course it is not by argument that we originally come by our belief
in an independent external world. We find this belief ready in
ourselves as soon as we begin to reflect: it is what may be called an
instinctive belief. We should never have been led to question this
belief but for the fact that, at any rate in the case of sight, it
seems as if the sense-datum itself were instinctively believed to be
the independent object, whereas argument shows that the object cannot
be identical with the sense-datum. This discovery,
however, which is not at all paradoxical in the case of taste and smell and sound, and
only slightly so in the case of touch, leaves undiminished our
instinctive belief that there are objects corresponding to our
sense-data. Since this belief does not lead to any difficulties, but
on the contrary tends to simplify and systematize our account of our
experiences, there seems no good reason for rejecting it. We may
therefore admit, though with a slight doubt derived from dreams, that
the external world does really exist, and is not wholly dependent for
its existence upon our continuing to perceive it.
The argument which has led us to this conclusion is doubtless less
strong than we could wish, but it is typical of many philosophical
arguments, and it is therefore worth while to consider briefly its
general character and validity. All knowledge, we find, must be built
up upon our instinctive beliefs, and if these are rejected, nothing is
left. But among our instinctive beliefs some are much stronger than
others, while many have, by habit and association, become entangled
with other beliefs, not really instinctive, but falsely supposed to be
part of what is believed instinctively.
Overlord
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 18221258
Australia
05/27/2013 06:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
What is your response to the aforementioned questions and statements?

Are you intellectually capable?

Are you a sub-conscious philosopher yourself?

I would like to perceive some responses.
Overlord
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3793275
United Kingdom
05/27/2013 06:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
epistemological cut and paste.start pasting philosophical treatises on glp are you mad? It will malfunction,by the what are your OWN conjectures on the metaphysical representations of philosphy ?(from a berkelyian idealogical foundation) assuming you accept objectivity is afigment of some pragmatists lucid imagination.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3793275
United Kingdom
05/27/2013 06:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
What is your response to the aforementioned questions and statements?

Are you intellectually capable?

Are you a sub-conscious philosopher yourself?

I would like to perceive some responses.
 Quoting: 0verlord

No im retarded does that make me a suitable candidate?(i must not mention david chalmers the aussie phil of mind super geek, oh shit i just did to late destiny bit my arse.
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 17282696
Australia
05/27/2013 06:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
What is your response to the aforementioned questions and statements?

Are you intellectually capable?

Are you a sub-conscious philosopher yourself?

I would like to perceive some responses.
 Quoting: 0verlord

No im retarded does that make me a suitable candidate?(i must not mention david chalmers the aussie phil of mind super geek, oh shit i just did to late destiny bit my arse.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3793275


Irrelevant details in relation to the topic at hand.
Overlord
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 17282696
Australia
05/27/2013 06:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
epistemological cut and paste.start pasting philosophical treatises on glp are you mad? It will malfunction,by the what are your OWN conjectures on the metaphysical representations of philosphy ?(from a berkelyian idealogical foundation) assuming you accept objectivity is afigment of some pragmatists lucid imagination.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3793275


Why do you assume I am mad? The more responses to the topic the better, in my terms however.
Overlord
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 17282696
Australia
05/27/2013 06:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
The mere notion of questioning fulfills the need of answering.
Overlord
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 40182862
New Zealand
05/27/2013 06:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
OP is chasing his tail.

But to be fair...

- we all are.
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 17282696
Australia
05/27/2013 06:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
If you are all so inclined on the prospect of a few view points here is another. One on another viewpoint in modern history.

First we have to go back to the beginning of the end for western civilization -- World War I. It's necessary to give a brief overview. Stay with me. I promise you'll be rewarded in the end.

In early 20th century Germany, jewish people were treated, for the most part, the same as any ethnic German. Many were very prosperous and made very good livings. In World War I, German jewish people fought and died for Germany. There are cemeteries in Germany attesting to this fact.

The year that changed everything was 1917. Three very important things happened in 1917 -- 1) The U.S. entered WWI on the Allied side; and 2) The Balfour Declaration was written; 3) Russia dropped out of the war. It had been allied with Britain and France. And all 3 events are connected by a single thread -- Zionism. Allow me to explain...

In the late 1800s, an Austrian jewish, Theodor Herzl, is credited with having founded Zionism. Between the 1880s and 1910s, Zionism and its adherents gained influence and stature within the European Jewish community, particularly in Germany, where most of the wealthy jewish people lived.

World War I lasted from 1914-18. After rapid German advances in the west into the Low Countries and northern France, there was a stalemate. The year was 1917. Neither side was gaining much ground. There was trench warfare. Nothing was being accomplished by either side. The resources and manpower were dwindling. Germany, as a matter of fact, proposed a peace with Britain and France, that would stop the war and give everyone back what they had at the beginning. Britain and France refused. Britain wanted Germany destroyed. Germany was a rising power, and threatened Britain economically not only on the Continent, but with its colonies in Africa and the south Pacific. Britain was feeling the threat to its dominance building since Germany unified after the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War.

Remember that Germany was allied with the Ottoman Turkish Empire in WWI. It was Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Turks against Britain, France, and (until 1917) Russia. Russia dropped out of WWI to fight its internal civil war -- the Russian (Communist) Revolution, which was agitated for mostly by Russian jewish people. For decades, jewish people in Russia sought the overthrow of the Russian monarchy (a point I will come back to later in a larger context for all of Europe).

Organized radical Jewry in Europe (let's call them Zionists for lack of a better term) observed several events happening that presented them with the ultimate Machiavellian (traitorous/treasonous) opportunity: 1) Russia dropped out of WWI. Organized radical jewry in Russia was spearheading the overthrow of the Christian monarchy of the tsars. Thus, (2), Britain and France faced a desperate situation, as now the full force of the German military was able to withdraw from their eastern (Russian) front, and turn west to channel their energies against Britain and France. 3) Zionism and its aherents, most of whom resided in Germany at the time, coveted the "Holy Land" -- Palestine. The Turks controlled Palestine. The Turks were allied with the Germans. Thus, it behooved organized, radical Jewry (Zionists) to battle AGAINST these "Central Powers" (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey), as they were called, and ally themselves with the "Allies" -- Britain and France. Thus, in 1917, after two and half years of loyally supporting their nation, Germany, in its battle against Britain and France (and Russia), the German zionists, secretly of course, stabbed their nation and their countrymen in the back and decided to bring their considerable influence to bear in helping Britain and France to defeat Germany (and most importantly Turkey), thus "freeing" Palestine from the centuries-old grip of the Ottoman Turks.

Zionists in Germany devised a scheme. They went to the British government and offered them a deal: IF WE, GERMAN ZIONISTS, GET OUR ZIONIST "FRIENDS" IN AMERICA TO INFLUENCE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO ENTER WWI ON YOUR (BRITAIN'S AND FRANCE'S) SIDE, THEN AFTER YOU ARE VICTORIOUS (and victory would be assured upon American entrance into the war because of the fresh manpower, supplies, etc.), YOU MUST PROMISE TO ALLOW EUROPEAN jewish people TO EMIGRATE TO PALESTINE (which will have been freed from Turkish rule after Allied victory).

Britain agreed. So in 1917, we have both the United States entering World War I, and the writing of the Balfour Declaration, which was a letter written by British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild. A couple of questions everyone should ask themselves about these two events: Why would the Balfour Declaration be written to Lord Rothschild? And why would the U.S. enter WWI? World War I was the most quintessential of EUROPEAN wars. It had nothing to do with the United States. America was dragged in, its sons' blood shed, and its resources used to fight for a jewish homeland in Palestine. That's the gist of it. And to top it off, this true reason for America's entrance into World War I was not given to the American people. Obviously if it was, no American would support our going to war. Instead, in our history books, our American entrance into WWI was couched in excuses like: the sinking of the Lusitania, and the Zimmermann Letter. Regarding the Lusitania, 1) it was sunk in 1915, two years prior. Why would we wait 2 years to retaliate? 2) Germany warned the United States many times (even posting ads in 50 American newspapers) that ships carrying contraband would be sunk. The Lusitania was, indeed, carrying munitions. Thus, it was sunk. As usual, American politicians had their own agenda (influenced by those who do not have the best interests of America or Americans at heart), and they needed a casus belli ("reason for war") to sell to the American people (USS Maine, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, etc.).

A quick interjection here. The modus operandi of organized radical jewry has always been to gain as much control of 2 of their "host" country's most important industries: 1) mass communication, and organized labor. In Russia, in Germany, in America. It matters not the country. In each, organized radical jewry dominates, controls, practically owns these 2 industries. The reason for this is to: 1) control all avenues of information dissemination -- television, movies, radio, print, media, publishing houses. And 2) to be able to initiate strikes and paralyze the economy, bringing the nation's production to a halt. They utilized both their "ace cards" in Germany in 1917 and after. They started a media campaign questioning Germany's involvement in WWI. Morale was weakened on the front. And regarding work production, strikes were organized at munitions and supply factories, so resources to the front dwindled. Germany was brought to its knees; not by Britain or France, but from within...by organized radical jewry, who stabbed Germany in the back in an effort to secure for themselves the much-coveted Zionist dream of a "homeland" for European jewish people. There's even a German name for this stab in the back during WWI -- Dolchstosslegende. This stab-in-the-back is further bolstered by the fact that not a single enemy soldier ever set foot on German soil during WWI. Yet Germany surrended. How can this be? It's amazing the things we're not told in our western history. It's certainly true that the victors write the history. There's not a better example of it than World War I.

I forgot to talk briefly about why the Zimmermann Letter was NOT a legitimate reason for America to enter WWI. The Zimmermann Letter was a telegram (what we'd call a "cable" today) written by German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann to the German ambassador to Mexico, Heinrich von Eckardt, which stated that IF the U.S. entered the war on the Britain and France's side, Eckardt was to propose a military alliance between Germany and Mexico. Mexico rejected the proposal. These types of behind-the-scenes jockeying for position cables are common diplomatic interactions between nations. It just so happens this one was intercepted by the British (hmmm....) and made public (HMMMM....). Whomever decided to publicize it to the American people did so knowing the propagandistic firestorm that would ensue. (Sort of like airing all those "Bin Laden" tapes on the evening news). In short, the Zimmermann Letter was not a legitimate reason for a nation to commit hundreds of thousands of troops, resources, money, and blood for 2 years to a European war.

Hitler served his country on the front in World War I. He was injured and required hospitalization. While recovering from his injuries in hospital (as the Brits say), he, and the rest of Germany, read the stunning news in their newspapers that Germany had unconditionally surrendered in the Great War. Things had been going generally well. Even if Germany was no longer making advances deeper into France toward Paris, at least Germany herself wasn't being invaded. Again, not a single enemy soldier set foot on German soil during World War I. How could Germany offer up an unconditional surrender? This was baffling to many Germans, including Hitler.

The truth will out, as the saying goes. Answers came to those who sought them. It was readily apparent that not only was Germany betrayed from within by Zionists, but Germany was sold out at the Treaty of Versailles. Total responsibility for World War I was heaped upon Germany, when Germany was no more responsible for the war than any of the other participants. Germany was made to pay war reparations (which they just finished paying two years ago, 2011); Germany was stripped of much of its territory; the German military was severely reduced; and parts of Germany's most productive industrial areas were given over to foreign control. By any reasonable person's standard, these terms were unfair; bordering on destructive.

Many things can be said, and have been said, about Hitler. Stupidity isn't one of them (or shouldn't be). Hitler sought to make Germany self-sufficient. He first sought to get rid of the central banks, which were owned primarily by German jewish people. He saw the destructive force they wielded during the Weimar Republic, bringing Germany to its knees financially. Within, 5 years, Hitler had transformed Germany into a productive, industrial powerhouse once again. So incredible was the transformation, it's called the "German Miracle". Debt-based currency was done away with. Currency was now produced and issued by the Reich; not private, primarily Jewish, bankers. This is why organized radical Jewry in Germany urged worldwide Jewry to boycott all German products. When they did, it hurt the German economy. Tensions mounted. Germans responded by boycotting jewish stores.

The German economy, despite the boycott engineered against it by organized radical (Zionist) jewry, persevered.

Let's take a look at the onset of WWII now. Despite the innuendo we're exposed to in our "western media", prior to WWII, Hitler only looked EAST. Stalin's USSR was always Hitler's main concern. As a matter of fact, Hitler and many Germans considered Germany to be Europe's bulwark against the powerful, ruthless, Bolshevik, Communist USSR to the east. Also, Hitler retook lands that were stripped from Germany after WWII (again, all to the east) -- anschluss with Austria, taking the German part of the Sudetenland, and retaking Prussia (western Poland). It's interesting that not once did Hitler show aggression toward the west of Germany. Only after Britain and France declared war on Germany did Hitler then turn west. Britain and France declared war on Germany after Germany invaded western Poland, in their successful attempt to retake Prussia which had been part of Germany before WWI. What we're not told much about is that at the same time (Sept. 1939), the USSR invaded Poland from the east. The USSR and Germany agreed to divide Poland. Why was Stalin's USSR not declared war upon, but Germany was? Interesting. The USSR was responsible for some of the worst massacres of WWII during their 1939 invasion of Poland; the Katyn Massacre, for one. Incidentally, western propaganda declared that Germany was responsible for the Katyn Massacre. Recently, evidence (which the leaders had always known) came to light in the public arena, proving that it was not Germany, but the Soviet army that was responsible for the massacre for 10,000 Polish military officers in the Katyn forest.

After experiencing firsthand the treachery and sabotage of organized radical (Zionist) Jewry in Germany during the first World War, Hitler was determined not to let such treachery occur again. Thus, in 1939 when the second world war started, Hitler put jewish people in German-controlled lands into concentration camps. NOT "death camps". Sure, people died there; as they died in the population at large in any country. But the concentration camps were not set up to exterminate jewish people. They were set up to remove a perceived internal threat to Germany. JUST LIKE AMERICA DID WITH JAPANESE-AMERICANS. We removed what we perceived could be a potential internal threat to our security during WWII. We put took Japanese Americans from their homes, away from their businesses, and forced them into concentration camps located throughout the United States. It could be argued that what America did had less validity, since America hadn't experienced a betrayal by Japanese Americans before. Germany, on the other hand, HAD experienced an internal betrayal by its jewish people -- 1917. THIS is the dirty little secret of WWII that western "mass media" (owned by whom?) holds very close to the vest. Qui bono? Who benefits? 1948: creation of the state of Israel.

"Arbeit macht frei" = "Works makes you free". The biggest cause of death in the concentration camps was typhus, which was spread by fleas. The Nazis attempted to combat typhus by using zyklon b to disinfect clothes, bedding, etc. at the concentration camps. And when people died of typhus, their corpses were burned in ovens in order to dispose of the diseased individual.

Allow me to give an example of the propaganda of the concentration camps used by "western mass media" since WWII. The records of most of the concentration camps were held by the USSR in secret. Thus, Zionist propagandists in the West could make up any numbers they wanted. Who would question it? The records couldn't be gotten to. With the fall of the USSR in 1991, the International Red Cross took control of the records from the concentration camps in the eastern bloc -- mostly in Poland. Between 1945 and 1991, organized radical jewry claimed that 4 million jewish people were murdered at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. The records to prove this claim were held by the highly secretive Soviet Union. When the Int'l Red Cross got a hold of the records in 1991, it was discovered that: 1) about 400,000 people died at Auschwitz. Notice 3 things here: 1) the amount of deaths were incredibly less; 2) those who died were NOT JUST jewish people, but people from all backgrounds, and 3) they DIED; they weren't murdered. Organized radical jewry went ballistic. They need the high numbers to exacerbate their self-annointed victimhood status. They refused to acknowledge the lower numbers. The Intl Red Cross argued that the facts are the facts. The outcome? A compromise! This is a perfect example of how history as we're told is NOT necessarily (rarely) truth. Even though the proof is there regarding how many people died at Auschwitz-Birkenau, because of the great influence of organized radical (Zionist) jewry, they had to compromise. The new plaque at Auschwitz-Birkenau has the "compromise" number of 1.2 millions death of jewish people...and others. So organized radical jewry won a victory in that the word MILLION remained, as did the word jewish people. Think of that. The number was reduced (even with the compromise) from 4 million to 1.2 million. That's a difference of 2.8 million deaths. Yet, the number "6 million" remains the total. And we're still told 6 million jewish people were executed. It's absolute bunk. Absolute lies.

There was a clear winner and a clear loser of the 20th century. Germany lost (read: got screwed), while jewish people won. jewish people got their state of Israel (Zionism's dream)...at the expense of the Palestinians who lived there, I might add. And regarding most of the other jewish people, who reside in America....no single group in the history of human civilization has been as prosperous as jewish Americans in the last part of the 20th century and early 21st century.

A holocaust museum in most major U.S. cities. A movie about the Holocaust EVERY YEAR in America. Hollywood (movies, tv), radio, news media, publishing houses (avenues of information dissemination) completed and utterly controlled and dominated by jewish people. Not to mention Wall Street, the Federal Reserve (which is neither federal, nor a reserve), and American foreign policy.

Last Edited by 0verlord on 05/27/2013 07:01 AM
Overlord
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3793275
United Kingdom
05/27/2013 08:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
how long would it take to paste a proglamena to ethics and would you read it?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 39283366
United States
05/27/2013 08:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
Thread: I am the Overlord and this is one of the last messages.

Finish what you started...
nuff said about this assmunch
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 17282696
Australia
05/27/2013 08:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
how long would it take to paste a proglamena to ethics and would you read it?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3793275


Did you read what I have mentioned?
Overlord
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 17282696
Australia
05/27/2013 08:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
Thread: I am the Overlord and this is one of the last messages.

Finish what you started...
nuff said about this assmunch
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 39283366


It is already complete. How is the basics of philosophical metaphysics "assmunch"?
Overlord
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 39283366
United States
05/27/2013 08:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
Thread: I am the Overlord and this is one of the last messages.

Finish what you started...
nuff said about this assmunch
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 39283366


It is already complete. How is the basics of philosophical metaphysics "assmunch"?
 Quoting: 0verlord


You and your ilk have already "won", so what's the point of cerebral masturbation? Go to a coffee shop and spout your crap.

Philosophy is great, people should think and peel back the layers. The examined life is worth living. You just like the bait and beat on scenario.
Go overlord somewhere else.
Citizenperth
FUKUSHIMA, GLPTARD 24/7/365

User ID: 40413069
Australia
05/27/2013 08:41 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
yer back... thanky.. i was getting bored.. bring it overlord.. ;)

you left you other failed threads i take it?

reta

Last Edited by Citizenperth on 05/27/2013 08:42 AM
It's life as we know it, but only just.
My Fukushima Site:
[link to citizenperth.wordpress.com]
sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie

GLP's best Fuku thread: Thread: *** Fukushima *** and other nuclear-----updates and links
twitter: @citizenperth
“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on it, I would use the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I knew the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.”
- Albert Einstein
TheOriginalMind

User ID: 39166829
United States
05/27/2013 08:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
A is A.

That's all you need to know.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1605487
India
05/27/2013 08:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
The mere notion of questioning fulfills the need of answering.
 Quoting: 0verlord


Being non-superstitious isn't enough
We Must Interrogate Nature


mxplx.com
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1605487
India
05/27/2013 09:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
epistemological cut and paste.start pasting philosophical treatises on glp are you mad? It will malfunction,by the what are your OWN conjectures on the metaphysical representations of philosphy ?(from a berkelyian idealogical foundation) assuming you accept objectivity is afigment of some pragmatists lucid imagination.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3793275

does that mean objectivity is subjective
Citizenperth
FUKUSHIMA, GLPTARD 24/7/365

User ID: 40413069
Australia
05/27/2013 10:43 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
ffs.. epic fail underlord.. go take your meds before mummy know you got her laptop....
It's life as we know it, but only just.
My Fukushima Site:
[link to citizenperth.wordpress.com]
sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie

GLP's best Fuku thread: Thread: *** Fukushima *** and other nuclear-----updates and links
twitter: @citizenperth
“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on it, I would use the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I knew the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.”
- Albert Einstein
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 17851312
Australia
05/28/2013 03:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
I have explained a viewpoint in history different from what you generally know. I have explained, in-depth the basics of philosophy, yet you show no signs of comprehending it. That is the awakening.
Overlord
Citizenperth
FUKUSHIMA, GLPTARD 24/7/365

User ID: 40413069
Australia
05/28/2013 03:38 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
I have explained a viewpoint in history different from what you generally know. I have explained, in-depth the basics of philosophy, yet you show no signs of comprehending it. That is the awakening.
 Quoting: 0verlord


no

your other thread failed

you have yourself awaken to the curiosity of human inquisitiveness

your ramblings as an undergraduate of the human psyche is more harmful than good

at the most, we trained those people at university with debriefing programs because most would show symptomology of the 'disease' that was taught

(i tried many times in your last thread to caution you)

are you one of those?
for more information look at :

post graduate mentoring in the school of medicine:

University of Auckland, NZ, school of Medicine and post graduate research.

University of Western Australia, school of Medicine and post graduate research.


Edith Cowan University, school of Medicine and post graduate research, WA.

I've lectured in the three and others.

Point being is that your assumptions are random and broad.

I'd like to hear more as your knowledge increases.

ps: stop with the overlord stuff, you harm only yourself.

Last Edited by Citizenperth on 05/28/2013 03:45 AM
It's life as we know it, but only just.
My Fukushima Site:
[link to citizenperth.wordpress.com]
sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie

GLP's best Fuku thread: Thread: *** Fukushima *** and other nuclear-----updates and links
twitter: @citizenperth
“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on it, I would use the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I knew the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.”
- Albert Einstein
0verlord (OP)

User ID: 17851312
Australia
05/28/2013 03:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
I have explained a viewpoint in history different from what you generally know. I have explained, in-depth the basics of philosophy, yet you show no signs of comprehending it. That is the awakening.
 Quoting: 0verlord


no

your other thread failed

you have yourself awaken to the curiosity of human inquisitiveness

your ramblings as an undergraduate of the human psyche is more harmful than good

at the most, we trained those people at university with debriefing programs because most would show symptomology of the 'disease' that was taught

(i tried many times in your last thread to caution you)

are you one of those?
for more information look at :

post graduate mentoring in the school of medicine:

University of Auckland, NZ, school of Medicine and post graduate research.

University of Western Australia, school of Medicine and post graduate research.


Edith Cowan University, school of Medicine and post graduate research, WA.

I've lectured in the three and others.

Point being is that your assumptions are random and broad.

I'd like to hear more as your knowledge increases.

ps: stop with the overlord stuff, you harm only yourself.
 Quoting: Citizenperth


Would you like me to elaborate more on aspects of philosophy? In any case, how are they harmful?
Overlord
Citizenperth
FUKUSHIMA, GLPTARD 24/7/365

User ID: 40413069
Australia
05/28/2013 03:52 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
I have explained a viewpoint in history different from what you generally know. I have explained, in-depth the basics of philosophy, yet you show no signs of comprehending it. That is the awakening.
 Quoting: 0verlord


no

your other thread failed

you have yourself awaken to the curiosity of human inquisitiveness

your ramblings as an undergraduate of the human psyche is more harmful than good

at the most, we trained those people at university with debriefing programs because most would show symptomology of the 'disease' that was taught

(i tried many times in your last thread to caution you)

are you one of those?
for more information look at :

post graduate mentoring in the school of medicine:

University of Auckland, NZ, school of Medicine and post graduate research.

University of Western Australia, school of Medicine and post graduate research.


Edith Cowan University, school of Medicine and post graduate research, WA.

I've lectured in the three and others.

Point being is that your assumptions are random and broad.

I'd like to hear more as your knowledge increases.

ps: stop with the overlord stuff, you harm only yourself.
 Quoting: Citizenperth


Would you like me to elaborate more on aspects of philosophy? In any case, how are they harmful?
 Quoting: 0verlord


< has PhD.. 95$ p/h.. ring me.....
It's life as we know it, but only just.
My Fukushima Site:
[link to citizenperth.wordpress.com]
sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie

GLP's best Fuku thread: Thread: *** Fukushima *** and other nuclear-----updates and links
twitter: @citizenperth
“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on it, I would use the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I knew the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.”
- Albert Einstein
miqq

User ID: 39557880
Argentina
05/28/2013 09:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
0verlod, that's almost identical of what Chaol have been saying.
Nothing exists outside of our perspective
U3

User ID: 9834739
United States
05/28/2013 02:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
For those of you who are not familiar with the study and understanding of philosophy,
here are some explanations which will fuel your mind.
The basics of philosophy explained in detail from a human perspective.
The undeniable, ever-constant evidence which will leave you wondering.

Here is an example.
In daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on a closer
scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only
a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really
may believe. In the search for certainty, it is natural to begin with
our present experiences, and in some sense, no doubt, knowledge is to
be derived from them. But any statement as to what it is that our
immediate experiences make us know is very likely to be wrong. It
seems to me that I am now sitting in a chair, at a table of a certain
shape, on which I see sheets of paper with writing or print. By
turning my head I see out of the window buildings and clouds and the sun.

I believe that the sun is about ninety-three million miles from
the earth; that it is a hot globe many times bigger than the earth;
that, owing to the earth's rotation, it rises every morning, and will
continue to do so for an indefinite time in the future. I believe
that, if any other normal person comes into my room, he will see the
same chairs and tables and books and papers as I see, and that the
table which I see is the same as the table which I feel pressing
against my arm. All this seems to be so evident as to be hardly worth
stating, except in answer to a man who doubts whether I know anything.
Yet all this may be reasonably doubted, and all of it requires much
careful discussion before we can be sure that we have stated it in a
form that is wholly true.

To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the
table. To the eye it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is
smooth and cool and hard; when I tap it, it gives out a wooden sound.
Any one else who sees and feels and hears the table will agree with
this description, so that it might seem as if no difficulty would
arise; but as soon as we try to be more precise our troubles begin.
Although I believe that the table is 'really' of the same colour all
over, the parts that reflect the light look much brighter than the
other parts, and some parts look white because of reflected light. I
know that, if I move, the parts that reflect the light will be
different, so that the apparent distribution of colours on the table will change.

It follows that if several people are looking at the
table at the same moment, no two of them will see exactly the same
distribution of colours, because no two can see it from exactly the
same point of view, and any change in the point of view makes some
change in the way the light is reflected.
For most practical purposes these differences are unimportant, but to
the painter they are all-important: the painter has to unlearn the
habit of thinking that things seem to have the colour which common
sense says they 'really' have, and to learn the habit of seeing things
as they appear. Here we have already the beginning of one of the
distinctions that cause most trouble in philosophy, the distinction
between 'appearance' and 'reality', between what things seem to be and
what they are. The painter wants to know what things seem to be, the
practical man and the philosopher want to know what they are; but the
philosopher's wish to know this is stronger than the practical man's,
and is more troubled by knowledge as to the difficulties of answering
the question.
To return to the table. It is evident from what we have found, that
there is no colour which pre-eminently appears to be the colour of
the table, or even of any one particular part of the table , it appears
to be of different colours from different points of view, and there is
no reason for regarding some of these as more really its colour than others.

We know that even from a given point of view the colour
will seem different by artificial light, or to a colour-blind man, or
to a man wearing blue spectacles, while in the dark there will be no
colour at all, though to touch and hearing the table will be
unchanged. This colour is not something which is inherent in the
table, but something depending upon the table and the spectator and
the way the light falls on the table. When, in ordinary life, we
speak of the colour of the table, we only mean the sort of colour
which it will seem to have to a normal spectator from an ordinary
point of view under usual conditions of light. But the other colours
which appear under other conditions have just as good a right to be
considered real; and therefore, to avoid favouritism, we are compelled
to deny that, in itself, the table has any one particular colour.
The same thing applies to the texture. With the naked eye one can see
the grain, but otherwise the table looks smooth and even. If we
looked at it through a microscope, we should see roughnesses and hills
and valleys, and all sorts of differences that are imperceptible to
the naked eye. Which of these is the 'real' table? We are naturally
tempted to say that what we see through the microscope is more real,
but that in turn would be changed by a still more powerful microscope.
If, then, we cannot trust what we see with the naked eye, why should
we trust what we see through a microscope?
Thus, again, the
confidence in our senses with which we began deserts us.

The shape of the table is no better.
We are all in the habit of
judging as to the 'real' shapes of things, and we do this so
unreflectingly that we come to think we actually see the real shapes.
But, in fact, as we all have to learn if we try to draw, a given thing
looks different in shape from every different point of view. If our
table is 'really' rectangular, it will look, from almost all points of
view, as if it had two acute angles and two obtuse angles. If
opposite sides are parallel, they will look as if they converged to a
point away from the spectator; if they are of equal length, they will
look as if the nearer side were longer. All these things are not
commonly noticed in looking at a table, because experience has taught
us to construct the 'real' shape from the apparent shape, and the
'real' shape is what interests us as practical men. But the 'real'
shape is not what we see; it is something inferred from what we see.
And what we see is constantly changing in shape as we move about the
room; so that here again the senses seem not to give us the truth
about the table itself, but only about the appearance of the table.
Similar difficulties arise when we consider the sense of touch. It is
true that the table always gives us a sensation of hardness, and we
feel that it resists pressure. But the sensation we obtain depends
upon how hard we press the table and also upon what part of the body
we press with;
thus the various sensations due to various pressures
or various parts of the body cannot be supposed to reveal directly any
definite property of the table, but at most to be signs of some
property which perhaps causes all the sensations, but is not
actually apparent in any of them. And the same applies still more
obviously to the sounds which can be elicited by rapping the table.
Thus it becomes evident that the real table, if there is one, is not
the same as what we immediately experience by sight or touch or
hearing. The real table, if there is one, is not immediately known
to us at all, but must be an inference from what is immediately known.
Hence, two very difficult questions at once arise; namely, (1) Is
there a real table at all? (2) If so, what sort of object can it be?
It will help us in considering these questions to have a few simple
terms of which the meaning is definite and clear. Let us give the
name of 'sense-data' to the things that are immediately known in
sensation: such things as colours, sounds, smells, hardnesses,
roughnesses, and so on. We shall give the name 'sensation' to the
experience of being immediately aware of these things. Thus, whenever
we see a colour, we have a sensation of the colour, but the colour
itself is a sense-datum, not a sensation. The colour is that of
which we are immediately aware, and the awareness itself is the
sensation.
It is plain that if we are to know anything about the
table, it must be by means of the sense-data , brown colour, oblong shape,
smoothness, etc. , which we associate with the table; but, for
the reasons which have been given, we cannot say that the table is the
sense-data, or even that the sense-data are directly properties of the
table. Thus a problem arises as to the relation of the sense-data to
the real table, supposing there is such a thing.
The real table, if it exists, we will call a 'physical object'. Thus
we have to consider the relation of sense-data to physical objects.
The collection of all physical objects is called 'matter'. Thus our
two questions may be re-stated as follows: (1) Is there any such thing
as matter? (2) If so, what is its nature?
What do you presume? Isn't it self-evident?
 Quoting: 0verlord





hf bump
Alexander

User ID: 15635858
United States
05/28/2013 10:13 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
You can't put down a wall of text and expect a response right away. It's easier in to read in shorter script. One or two paragraphs at a time to give the reader some time to digest what's being presented.
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 40668859
Ireland
05/28/2013 10:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
0verlord your full of shit. I replied to you in many threads but you never replied back.

The thing to remember is, there is no spoon.
U3

User ID: 9834739
United States
05/28/2013 10:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Examples of the study of philosophy.
One great reason why it is felt that we must secure a physical object
in addition to the sense-data, is that we want the same object for
different people. When ten people are sitting round a dinner-table,
it seems preposterous to maintain that they are not seeing the same
tablecloth, the same knives and forks and spoons and glasses. But the
sense-data are private to each separate person; what is immediately
present to the sight of one is not immediately present to the sight of
another: they all see things from slightly different points of view,
and therefore see them slightly differently. Thus, if there are to be
public neutral objects, which can be in some sense known to many
different people, there must be something over and above the private
and particular sense-data which appear to various people. What
reason, then, have we for believing that there are such public neutral
objects?
The first answer that naturally occurs to one is that,
although different people,
may see the table slightly differently, still they
all see more or less similar things when they look at the table, and
the variations in what they see follow the laws of perspective and
reflection of light, so that it is easy to arrive at a permanent
object underlying all the different people's sense-data. I bought my
table from the former occupant of my room; I could not buy his
sense-data, which died when he went away, but I could and did buy the
confident expectation of more or less similar sense-data. Thus it is
the fact that different people have similar sense-data, and that one
person in a given place at different times has similar sense-data,
which makes us suppose that over and above the sense-data there is a
permanent public object which underlies or causes the sense-data of
various people at various times.
Now in so far as the above considerations depend upon supposing that
there are other people besides ourselves, they beg the very question
at issue. Other people are represented to me by certain sense-data,
such as the sight of them or the sound of their voices, and if I had
no reason to believe that there were physical objects independent of
my sense-data, I should have no reason to believe that other people
exist except as part of my dream. Thus, when we are trying to show
that there must be objects independent of our own sense-data, we
cannot appeal to the testimony of other people, since this testimony
itself consists of sense-data, and does not reveal other people's experiences,
unless our own sense-data are signs of things existing
independently of us. We must therefore, if possible, find, in our own
purely private experiences, characteristics which show, or tend to
show, that there are in the world things other than ourselves and our
private experiences.
In one sense it must be admitted that we can never prove the existence
of things other than ourselves and our experiences. No logical
absurdity results from the hypothesis that the world consists of
myself and my thoughts and feelings and sensations, and that
everything else is mere fancy. In dreams a very complicated world may
seem to be present, and yet on waking we find it was a delusion; that
is to say, we find that the sense-data in the dream do not appear to
have corresponded with such physical objects as we should naturally
infer from our sense-data. (It is true that, when the physical world
is assumed, it is possible to find physical causes for the sense-data
in dreams: a door banging, for instance, may cause us to dream of a
naval engagement. But although, in this case, there is a physical
cause for the sense-data, there is not a physical object corresponding
to the sense-data in the way in which an actual naval battle would
correspond.) There is no logical impossibility in the supposition that
the whole of life is a dream, in which we ourselves create all the
objects that come before us. But although this is not logically
impossible, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true;
and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis, viewed as a means of
accounting for the facts of our own life, than the common-sense
hypothesis that there really are objects independent of us, whose
action on us causes our sensations.

 Quoting: 0verlord





There is no way to prove there are objects independent of us because we only have our perception. We can not see outside of our perception.

These "sensations" you mention, are still within our perception. We are free to assign meaning to an outside object as causing them, but that is still only within our perception.

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!